Govt Defeated-Cons Losing Election More Likely

Tancred

Personally, I think the Conservatives are running scared. They fear the ethnic vote and the leftward trend in this sector of the population. There is even talk of a black Tory 'Obama' to lead the party and grab the non-white vote. Of course it wouldn't work because ethnic voters are not generally racist and would rather vote for white person who reflects their beliefs than a black person who doesn't. In the USA it's different because of the history of slavery and civil rights struggle etc.

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

1) Interesting point - some say the real reason the Democrats won in the US was not because of the campaign but because of the organisation on the ground on the day to get out their core vote.

Republicans also marginalised the Latino vote. Republicans are predominantly white and middle class. Whites I believe only constitute around 30% of population. So like the UK. The current political parties are out of line with electorate in terms of what they say they represent. Times have changed.

Tancred

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Republicans also marginalised the Latino vote. Republicans are predominantly white and middle class. Whites I believe only constitute around 30% of population. So like the UK. The current political parties are out of line with electorate in terms of what they say they represent. Times have changed.

No. Whites are actually still around 70% of the US population, believe it or not. The figure had hovered around 85-90% in the 1925 to 1965 period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Demographics

The figures probably include Arabs, Turks and others who are not strictly 'European' but even if you take them off it's still over 60% of the population.

GeorgeHowell

michaels wrote: »

1)

5) The Tories who vetoed democratic reform of the unelected second chamber as part of an argument within the Tory party between modernisers and social conservatives to 'flex their muscles' with respect to disagreements over social issues and Europe really did 'cut of their noses to spite their faces' by severely damaging the Tories electoral prospects at the next election over a reform issue that they probably were not that worried about. Then to disingenuously suggest that the LibDems should stick to a coalition agreement that they had ignored reeks of hypocrisy.

I think that was a wise move. We could have ended up with an American type system with two houses with different political majorities at loggerheads. An elected Lords would also be likely to be based on proportional representation meaning that the hopeless, hapless LibDems would likely hold the balance there in perpetuity. Conservatives who knocked this back thankfully destroyed another of Clegg's dreams. In the long term the adverse consequences for the country could far outweigh electoral concerns for 2015.

custardy

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Will UKIP pick up the disgruntled vote in Labour strongholds?

not sure
Way I see it is the Lib Dems are screwed.
I dont see many new voters coming to them and many who voted for them wont this time
I dont see many jumping to the Tories and I'm not sure what previous voters will do.
Labour I have no idea. I guess most who voted Labour last time will again? not sure if they will pick up any previous Lib Dem voters
I see Ukip as doing well next time

Fella

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/simon-english-dont-hold-your-breath-but-the-city-is-shortening-its-odds-on-a-tory-election-victory-8474813.html

"last week something happened which prompted a rethink. The Prime Minister’s speech on the EU referendum caused one closely watched market to move sharply. IG Group, the City’s most important spread betting house, has a politics department that offers a binary bet (don’t ask, just stick with me). The odds suddenly shifted from agreeing that the Conservatives were a lame horse to suggesting they might be coming up on the outside. The chances of a Tory win were priced at 27 per cent, up from 22. Still not likely, but looking interesting. Labour’s odds tumbled from 44 per cent to 36."

IG Index of course, are actually putting their money where their mouth is therefore have an opinion worth hearing.

Labour still favs but by a much smaller margin since the EU Referendum with it all to play for, sounds about correct to me.

BertieUK

Does the Forum Panel think that seeing the state that our economy is in at the moment, that a large percentage of the Electorate of Britain will themselves have experienced the stresses of trying to budget their families lives, many on a shoe string, will now be in a more responsable position to understand that the only way for change is to vote for it.

A greater awareness to the Electorate the the need to get out and vote for our chosen candidate not with our hearts but our heads, there has never been a more need to get of our bottoms, because we can do it.

Looking back at the Local elections of May 2010 the vote was over 62% of the electorate, then surely they should go hand in hand, for some reason they do not.

What are your views as to why more do not get out and vote?

angrypirate

custardy wrote: »

not sure
Way I see it is the Lib Dems are screwed.
I dont see many new voters coming to them and many who voted for them wont this time
I dont see many jumping to the Tories and I'm not sure what previous voters will do.
Labour I have no idea. I guess most who voted Labour last time will again? not sure if they will pick up any previous Lib Dem voters
I see Ukip as doing well next time

I can see the Tories hoping that as a result of promising a referendum on EU, UKIP wont stand in the tory / labour and tory / lib dem marginals and will be hoping UKIP steal the odd seat from Labour strongholds where there is anti EU opinions.

The Tories are really hoping the economy will have significantly turned around come the next election, which in turn will help the books to balance.

Currently there are lots of small companies, for example in Tech City which are thriving due to encouragement from the government (put in place by Osborne - see link below). If, by the end of this governments term, these companies have managed to grow significantly and Osborne can "reap what he has sown", people might just see he hasnt been so daft after all and has managed not only to pull this country out of a recession, but also reverse the irresponsible spending by Labour.

If these rewards take longer than 2 years to come through, you can bet your bottom dollar Balls will take every ounce of credit if Labour are back in power, just like they did in 97, 98 and 99 when they inherited a booming economy from Ken Clarke.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100200464/a-big-play-from-osborne-could-stop-labour-hijacking-his-legacy/

GeorgeHowell

BertieUK wrote: »

Does the Forum Panel think that seeing the state that our economy is in at the moment, that a large percentage of the Electorate of Britain will themselves have experienced the stresses of trying to budget their families lives, many on a shoe string, will now be in a more responsable position to understand that the only way for change is to vote for it.

A greater awareness to the Electorate the the need to get out and vote for our chosen candidate not with our hearts but our heads, there has never been a more need to get of our bottoms, because we can do it.

Looking back at the Local elections of May 2010 the vote was over 62% of the electorate, then surely they should go hand in hand, for some reason they do not.

What are your views as to why more do not get out and vote?

Apathy, ignorance, disillusionment, cynicism, idleness.

Any or all of the above

The idea that voting brings about change for the better in this country is pretty unrealistic and a lot of people therefore don't bother. Many who do vote probably just vote for the perceived least worst option. Given a party that threw us into the worst slump in living memory, replaced by a coalition that may or may not start to haul us out of it within five years it's a pretty invidious choice and nobody who knows which end is up can vote in 2015 with any great enthusiasm.

I suspect that many of those who don't bother do not understand any of the issues anyway. Frankly it's a good thing that they don't vote. I'd hate to see compulsory voting in the UK because we'd get even more daft results from this electorate.

MacMickster

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Apathy, ignorance, disillusionment, cynicism, idleness.

Any or all of the above

The idea that voting brings about change for the better in this country is pretty unrealistic

The major political parties in this country just want to be elected. Rather than try to do the hard work of persuading the electorate that their party's deeply held convictions are what the country needs, they instead try to give the electorate what they want. They no longer have any deeply held beliefs and will happily change their views on a moments notice if they think that doing so will gain them power.

Politicians of all parties now generally went to the same schools and universities (even doing the same degrees). Then, without ever having had a proper job or run a start-up business they treat the House of Commons as if it were nothing more than the university debating society.

Doing the right thing for the country (at the probable cost of losing the next election) never enters their heads for a moment.